Grant Application Rejected for Being 'Too Honest About How Boring the Work Is'

A grant application submitted by Dr. Nema Roundworm to the Natural Environment Research Council has been returned with feedback describing it as 'technically sound but fatally undermined by an apparently pathological commitment to honesty.' The application, requesting funding for a three-year population study of plant-parasitic nematodes in agricultural soils, included a methodology section that reviewers flagged for its 'unconventional tone.' The section reads, in part: 'The proposed research will involve approximately 800 hours of extracting nematodes from soil using the Baermann funnel method, followed by approximately 1,200 hours of counting and identifying organisms that are, to the untrained eye, entirely indistinguishable from one another. The work will be conducted primarily in a windowless laboratory under fluorescent lighting that the principal investigator finds somewhat dispiriting but has accepted as her professional environment.' Reviewer comments included: 'The scientific rationale is strong, but the description of the working conditions reads less like a funding application and more like a confession' and 'We recommend the applicant adopt a more optimistic framing of the research experience, or at minimum remove the word dispiriting.' Dr. Roundworm defended the application. 'They asked me to describe the methodology accurately. I described it accurately. If the methodology is monotonous, that is a fact about nematology, not a failure of communication.' The application also included a risk assessment listing 'existential doubt' as a moderate-probability hazard and 'microscope-related neck pain' as high-probability. Dr. Roundworm has been advised to resubmit with 'appropriate enthusiasm.' She has agreed, noting that she will 'try to convey the excitement that I am told other researchers feel.'